This debate is about policy, I will allow moral responses but keep this in mind

BOP is shared

Please be courteous and have fun

Contention 1:South Korea has the potential to be self-sufficient.

South Korea was originally a country that needed our help to protect itself from North Korea. Those days have passed as we realize that in the status quo, South Korea has made progress to the point of not needing us as a supplier of military personnel anymore. This is clear if we look toward Global Fire Power where we see that South Korea is ranked 11th globally in military strength, while North Korea is ranked 25th globally in military prowess.

Also, South Korea is supported by a strong economy that can back up the military in the country. With a GDP of over one trillion dollars and a huge population, we can see that most certainly, South Korea can protect itself against the enemy of North Korea without the aid of military personnel from the United States within the region. Not only this, but South Korea seems to be furthering economic goals without the aid of the United States, which is an amazing monument of progress from years ago. According to the Heritage Foundation:

“Recent reforms have put greater emphasis on enhancing regulatory efficiency and ensuring a larger role for small and medium-size enterprises in the economy. South Korea’s dynamic private sector, bolstered by a well-educated, hard-working labor force, continues to capitalize on the country’s openness to global trade and investment”

These reforms are happening without much US involvement in the economic business of the country in recent years, meaning smart economic reforms have been done entirely without the United States having a role to play in general. This signals to the US that we have done our part and that we need to let the country grow on its own.

Finally, let us look toward the fact that South Korea has even more power because, according to National Interest in September, 2015, we see that South Korea has taken the originally North Korean allies of China and Russia, and made them in support of South Korea instead.

Clearly, South Korea needs to be self-sufficient, and the United States needs to stop supplying the ROK with unnecessary aid.

Contention 2: We ruin our relations with South Korea with control of their defense

In the status quo, our relations with South Korea are shaky at best due to our GI’s plethora of human rights abuses including crimes against the people in South Korea. In fact, according to a Stanford University study, we can see that the crime rate for GIs in these US bases are quite high:

“In South Korea, crimes that are committed on average five times or more in a day by American soldiers go unpunished, not to mention numerous rape and murder incidents in which most criminals can flee and hide from the crime scene since they are not placed under Korean jurisdiction until convicted.”

These incidents have manifested many protests and anti-American sentiment among the South Korean people. We can see an example of this if we turn toward the George Mason University study where we can see a story of two South Korean teenagers who were crushed to death under a US tank. This was said to be an accident and the people who were responsible were acquitted. This is one of many examples that would raise anti-American sentiment in the region.

We also see that we endanger our relation with South Korea in another way as well. When we turn toward the Environmental Law Institute study authored by Young Geun Chae of the professor of Law at the Inha University in South Korea, we can see troubling details of how the US military operations ruin the environment of South Korea. Out of 33 sites we have returned to the South Korean people, over 20 had contaminated groundwater. Not only does this ruin our relations with a major ally in Asia, it harms the productivity of the agricultural sector of South Korea, as well as putting people’s health in danger.

With this in mind, it should be obvious that we should affirm today’s bill to make a better name for ourselves overseas and protect the South Korean people. Ergo, affirm.

Contention 3: Our troops are needed elsewhere

Unless you have been living under a rock, you probably realize that the crisis in Syria needs to be addressed. However, with the current presence in other areas of the world, we see our prowess in the Middle East diluted. Keeping in mind that we have very little military intelligence. In fact, if we turn toward Foreign Policy we see the following:

“Because of the ongoing civil war and deteriorating security environment, the United States closed its Embassy in Damascus in February, 2012, and maintains no official presence in Syria. Consequently, America’s access to and understanding about the Assad regime, terrorist groups, foreign intervention, and conditions on the ground is severely limited.”

Fixing this problem will most certainly involve expanding our military presence and intelligence to make sure that our military operations are effective. But, with our continued aid toward South Korea, we don’t have the manpower to expand our military prowess.

Not only this, but Russia has the ability to undermine American power in the Middle East as well without continued commitment from the US. Russia has been gaining support from the Assad regime and started killing the rebels that the United States has been supporting and funding. Not only this, but Putin is also trying to take out ISIS, gaining more prestige from Bashar Al-Assad, which have also led to Russia trying to leech into America’s current allies as well so the United States has less international support.

I'll start off on observations/overview, then go top to bottom on the affirmative case, and then go onto negative case.

==Overview==

Recognize that today's round, the BOP might be shared, but he has to prove that we should withdraw both military presence and economic aid. If you think at the end of the round, the US should keep its military presence but end economic aid or vice-versa, the aff loses.

Decamp of the Naval War College outlines that Presence missions are meant to deter aggression, preserve regional balances, deflect arms races, and prevent power vacuums. They also cement alliances and signal that our commitments are backed by action. (http://www.dtic.mil...) The first negative case will hinge on that.

Recognize his advocacy is based on the current day. His assumption is that we would withdraw right away if we affirm.

==1NR==

==C1: South Korea can defend themselves==

4 key responses here

His first source comes from Global Fire Power. This source is awful for 3 key reasons. First, The bottom of this website says that the numbers provided are for entertainment purposes. Not academic. But even if you want to buy that, the main page of the same website says that it only factors in conventional warfare. This will become more relevant in the 1NC but basically the major threat to South Korea is going to be a Nuclear armed North Korea, not so much the conventional warfare. Third is that these numbers exist in a vacuum. His analysis here doesn't take into account things like leadership, willingness of a local population to fight, or allies of either nation.

Recognize that a strong economy doesn't guarantee a strong military. He has to prove that to get offense off of his second warrant.

His next source comes from the national interest and there are 2 ways you indict this. The first is that there is no explanation of how or why Russia and China stopped backing North Korea. But even if they have, there other uses for North Korea besides an ally. They would logically still support North Korea as a buffer state against South Korea, a nation that in the affirmative world would be a strong military power. But secondly, his own source concludes that North Korea is a stronger military power, when they write quote: On every measure of national power, save military, South Korea dominates.

Finally, just because there is a potential for a strong South Korea doesn't guarantee that South Korea will build up its military at a reasonable pace or at all.

==C2:US Troops Are Terrible==

3 responses here

Even if you buy that US troops perpetuate human rights abuses, he has no solvency here because under his 3rd contention he says we need to relocate troops to other areas where they are needed more. If troops are committing human rights abuses in South Korea, there is no reason to expect anything different if we just take these same troops and put them elsewhere. Insofar as this is true, he can't gain offense off of both of these arguments

His impact is protests, but he doesn't show how these protests have materialized into actual harms in the US-South Korean relationship.

His next impact is the environment. Recognize that this is the military infrastructure, so he has to prove that this goes away in the Affirmative world or he gets no offence. Logically, we can infer that it isn't going to go away. Not only does it take time to deconstruct infrastructure, but also money. It makes no sense to assume that the military power South Korea would become in the affirmative world wouldn't just use this infrastructure for their own military. No solvency

==C3: US troops are needed elsewhere==

5 responses

I'm going to concede that military overstretch is a problem, but he doesn't solve for this. He can't guarantee that these troops will be taken from South Korea and moved to someplace they would be used better. The USFG could just put them on a boat in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean or back on the US mainland

Extend my first response to his C2. He can't get offense off of both of these arguments. He tells us US troops are really really bad, but then he also wants us to put those troops in some of the most volatile, anti-American parts of the world.

His first example here is Syria. Lots of problems with this. First, we are already involved in the Syrian conflict via airstrikes. Second, what he is advocating for is essentially another forgein intervention in the Middle East. Look the previous Iraq wars as to why that's a bad idea.

His next materialization is stopping Russia from expanding their influence. A lot of problems with this. Recognize that this is exactly why we put troops in South Korea in the first place. No uniqueness. Furthermore, there is no solvency here. He doesn't show you that US troops are going to be able to stop Russia from propping up a regime they have supported for over 40 years. Then he says Russia wants to take out ISIS, but this benefits the US because

Drop this on fairness. This argument inherently forces me to prove that either A)Military overstretch isn't a problem, something that is impossible to do. Or alternatively I can prove B) US troops are best used in South Korea. The problem with this is that he can literally introduce new examples that I am forced to argue about, but he can also drop examples that I begin to win on. Because of this he creates an offense skew that I can never solve for. Drop this argument for that reason alone. If he is to run this argument, he should stay bound to the examples already presented.

==Negative Case==

The Thesis and Sole contention of the Negative Case is that US presence is a nauseously. We must maintain regional stability, and the US presence is key to that.

4 reasons.

First The US is sanctioning North Korea as outlined by the Department of the Tresses. This is problematic, because as the American Journal of Political Science outlines, Sanctions increase the risk of conflict by 17%.(https://www.researchgate.net...) This is because, as the article finds, sanctions are most often used in a manner that minimizes cost to the nation that sends the sanction, sending a message of weakness rather than strength. Because of this, North Korea is more likely to act out and start conflict, but their capability to attack the mainland US is lacking. So logically, they are going to simply lash out against US allies such as South Korea and Japan.

Second: The US withdrawal has created problems in the past. The National Interest finds that when the US withdrew military presence from the Philippines, it created a military vacuum that China felt they could fill. In response, China seized the Spratly Islands from the Philippines and started a territorial dispute between the two nations. (http://nationalinterest.org...) There is no reason to assume that this won't happen again.

Third is militarization. As Yuki Yoshida finds, when one nation militarizes, other nations inherently follow suit in order to not fall behind and maintain the balance of power. (http://www.atlantic-community.org...) If we are to believe the Aff that South Korea will become this great military power absent US forces. Then other nations in the region would simply follow suit and militarize swell, creating instability.

Fourth and finally, alliances backed by commitment reduce conflict. Rice University finds that this is quantified at 28%. (http://atop.rice.edu...) This is going to be really important because war between North Korea is really bad, and would likely escalate to a nuclear conflict, killing millions of people.

My opposition never addresses economic aid, but if it becomes needed, I reserve the right to defend that later in the round.

My opponent has four different responses that I will address. First, he responds that the validity of Global Fire Power is weak. I concede this after looking back at the website and would like to support this point with new evidence. If we look toward the Telegraph in September 2015, we can see the military from North Korea described as such:

“NorthKorearemains reliant on a predominantly obsolescent equipment inventory across all three services,” is the verdict of the International Institute for Strategic Studies.”

I will also concede that North Korea may have a larger population of people. However, given the equipment of the regime, it would be hard to determine that North Korea has the potential to easily take over South Korea considering the fact that the equipment is considered obsolete. I will give an example.

“On paper, the Stalinist state’s air force possesses 563 combat-capable aircraft; in reality, every one of these planes was grounded for a short period in 2014 thanks to problems with maintenance and serviceability.”

Also, International Business Times has recently published an article in 2015 about the viability of the North Korean military as well. The results include soviet-era firearms, an air force that could be taken down by South Korea, and according to the Pentagon, an aging navy as well, which is composed of submarines. Also, I will concede that is some ways North Korea is strong on the ground. However, let us look toward the fact that North Korea has ostracized itself from the rest of the world, losing important allies such as China to South Korea as China started becoming frightened of the nuclear program of North Korea which has led them to initiate sanctions on trade and energy as well as talking about denuclearizing North Korea through peace talks. However, trade between the countries remain high, these tensions are a starting point to a weakened relationship.

We can also see another incident which has rocked the boat with China with the recent testing of a nuclear missile described as such:“Not only did Mr. Kim ignoreChina’s entreaties, sending Mr. Wu home empty-handed. He did so emphatically, orderingthe launcha day earlier than expected so that it fell on one ofChina’s most important holidays, the eve of the Lunar New Year.”

I can assure you that the actions of North Korea will ostracize itself with China, thus meaning that South Korea will be protected. In fact, we jeopardize the security of South Korea given this article from the Council of Foreign Relations when it states:

“In 2010, China reacted strongly to the ROK-U.S. joint military exercises in the wake of North Korea's two provocations, and even identified the ROK-U.S. alliance as a regional security threat.”

This means that the longer we continue our operations overseas the longer we can expect anger from the Chinese government.

Secondly, he brings up the nuclear capabilities of North Korea, stating those to be the main problem as opposed to traditional military. However, the RAND Corporation would beg to differ as written in 2012:

“North Korea has likely launched Soviet/Russian-made missiles (that are old but proven designs) to maximize the appearance of performance.

North Korea may never have tested missiles from its own production, and any such indigenous missiles cannot have noteworthy reliability or accuracy.

It cannot be ruled out that North Korea has nuclear warhead designs for its missiles, but without actual testing, the reliability of these warheads has to be assumed to be low.

The main purpose of the program seems to be political — to create the impression of a serious missile threat and thereby gain strategic leverage, fortify the North Korean regime's domestic power, and deter other countries, particularly the Republic of Korea and the United States, from military action.”

The North Korean regime has the military program for one reason, to gain political leverage, not substantial power, meaning it is a concern, but not a threat large enough to need a standing force in South Korea for.

b.My second contention

I have stated that the military needs to be elsewhere and I will continue with this argument. However, what I meant to put into my argument was that we are harming our ally, which harming our ally would mean lessened relations with an important power in Asia that symbolizes democracy and what can happen with American help. Relocating our troops elsewhere and harming people elsewhere is inevitable as we need to fight the real enemy in the Middle East and establish military presence elsewhere to guarantee military intelligence in important locations. The main focus should be that our relations with this country are needed and the military presence invoking protests shows how it is actually harming them. Of course, I will explain why it is important. It is because of the fact that if South Korea resents us, it would lose us as an ally which would mean that North Korea would be able to conquer the country.

c.My third contention

My opponent claims an offense skew has taken place, however, my third contention is simply nothing but listing examples of the fact that our troops are better used elsewhere, such as in the Middle East. Remember, my opponent has stated:

“He can't guarantee that these troops will be taken from South Korea and moved to someplace they would be used better.”

Thus, this contention is of no consequence besides stating that the conflict in the Middle East is of more importance than the one in East Asia. All my opponent needs to prove is why removing the presence from South Korea would be problematic to our interests in that conflict outweighs the conflict of the Middle East.

Rebuttal 2: Actual points

My opponent has put his points into four points, I will attack each one.

a.First point

Yes, sanctions will raise the volatility of a nation, but that does not simply mean we need a military force in South Korea. After all, we have a military base in Japan and since you conceded that North Korea does not have the capability to attack the mainland we can respond to any action against our allies with equal force to what North Korea would do. After all, we are superior to their military.

b.Second point

My opponent cites a National Review article that stated that we would see a power vacuum that would leave China more powerful in that region. However, he does not link the Philippine’s conflict and South Korea’s conflict. South Korea is much more stable economically and militarily as opposed to the Philippines.

c.Third point

My opponent has stated that militarization would happen to the rest of the countries surrounding South Korea, and while a tendency for this would be true, I never stated this. I simply stated that regardless of US influence, South Korea would be a strong military power as it already is.

d.Fourth point

My opponent has stated that alliances backed by commitment decrease conflict and I am inclined to agree. However, we are in a commitment backed relationship with South Korea regardless of our military presence due to the fact that we still can step in if a conflict were to arise. North Korea already knows this and will stay clear of attacking South Korea.

Rebuttal 3:Economic aid

I will address this quickly since I am running out of room to write. However, we can see that because of the fact that economically, South Korea is sound, we no longer need US Aid to go there is no reason to continue giving aid. This can be easily demonstrated by the following fact:

“In 1987, South Korea transitioned to a democracy. That same year, after over two decades of solid economic growth, South Korea became a donor of official development assistance (ODA) providing $25 million in foreign aid. Contributions increased steadily, with annual percentage increases that often ranged from 30% to 79% for the next 20 years. By 2009, ROK contributions reached $816 million. It is important to note that these ODA numbers don’t include aid to North Korea, which would make these amounts far larger.”

South Korea has become so economically sound that it can give aid to other countries. With this in mind, why do we need to continue giving aid if the country is developed enough to aid itself? Also, my first contention has listed some of the improvements via the Heritage Foundation. We need to realize that the money is not necessary anymore and that we have done our job.

I'll start on extensions, his responses to my case, and then economic aid.

==Overview==

He drops all of it, conceded. Remember, he needs to win on both military presence and economic aid to win the round. This is the resolution he created and advocated for, he needs to meet this burden. Furthermore, extend Decamp, who tells you the purpose of military presence. Lastly his advocacy is based on the status quo, not the future. He has to prove that the US should withdraw right now to win the round.

==2NR==

==His 1C==He agrees to drop the Global Fire Power card completely. He tries to supplement this card with a card dump, but there are a lot of problems with this.

First, he concedes that North Korea is still a military threat. Even if I concede that South Korea would win a war, when you do the impact calculus, no war is always going to be better than a war where South Korea wins because it means that less people die. Lives outweigh all else because it is first on the hierarchy of needs. I can't care about being the victim of a crime if I am dead.

Then he talks about how North Korea has an aging military, but he doesn't do any sort of comparative analysis into the capability of South Korea absent US troops. But even still, in the negative world there wouldn't be a war in the first place. Cross apply the Rice University evidence for this. US troops have deterred North Korea for decades. This analysis only matters if there would actually be a war.

Then he talks about how North Korea has rocked the boat with China. This is also going to be really important for my side. I'll concede that this has happened, and as the Week reports, North Korea has threatened war with China (http://theweek.com....) But when we tell you US troops in the region are there to maintain stability, if stability is getting worse in the status quo than its really bad for us to pull a force out that is there for stability. But this still doesn't make logical sense. His advocacy is based on the fact that South Korea would fill the vacuum, but then would China really allow a strong, independent power on their border? This is the buffer effect, and that's why it makes sense that in the event of a North-South conflict, China would back North Korea.

But furthermore, cross apply what I tell you in the 1NC that withdrawal has seen China become aggressive before. At that point his impact is no unique.

His own evidence introduced in the 1AC, that he doesn't drop in his 2AC concedes that North Korea is a stronger military in the status quo

Then he brigs up this source from RAND in 2012. Here is a more recent article from the New York Times that says North Korea has nuclear capability. This evidence is more recent, his is 4 years old. http://www.nytimes.com...

==His 2C==

Remember he can't get offense off of bot his second contention and his third contention. But recognize here that he concedes that without the US, South Korea would get conquered. Drop him there.

He doesn't show any signs of the US-South Korean relationship actually shattering. Just that protests are breaking out.

===His 3C===

My response on the offense skew was not that one has been created but that one could be created.

Recognize the concession he makes in his 1AR is going to win me this argument. He states that all he is doing is stating troops will be better used in the middle east. He still doesn't prove that troop would actually go to the middle east if we pulled out of South Korea. Still no solvency. But furthermore, these troops would still be committing crimes and human rights abuses, only now it would be in a region that is already staunchly anti-US, meaning it would only radicalize the populations more.

In general he drops a lot of my responses. Any that he doesn't respond to you can extend. Onto his responses against my case.

==First point==He says we have troops in Japan, but recognize that most of the troops we have in Japan are located miles away in Okinawa. Furthermore, He contradicts himself by saying that we can still attack with the full force of the US military but if we pull troops away than logically we lose operational capacity in the region. But he ignores the part of this argument when I tell you that North Korea has to lash out against our allies in the event of a conflict. At that point you can extend the Decamp evidence which tells you that one of the uses of military presence is to deter conflict and stop hostile nations from lashing out against our allies.

==Second Point==His response here is that I don't prove the link back to South Korea. Fine, but what I do prove is the historic precedence that US withdrawal is a bad thing. Furthermore, even if South Korea is better off than the Philippines, it is still not as well off as China. Extend this argument.

==Third Point==He tells you he never claimed South Korea would militarize. I tell you they have to because, as his own evidence introduced in the 1AC concedes, is that South Korea is a weaker military force than North Korea. At that point cleanly extend this argument. If SK militarize, other nations in the region would do the same and the region would turn into a powder keg.

==Fourth Point==He concedes to the impact that having an ally committed to defence reduces conflict, but what he doesn't bring up is, yet again, the Decamp evidence. What Decamp tells you is that military presence sends the signal of our commitment to our allies, so at that point you can cleanly extend this argument as well.

I reduce conflict in the Negative World, I win this round on that alone because all I have to do is win Military presence and even if I drop economic aid, he has to win both to win this round. And before he writes out a T on fairness or something like that, remember that this is the resolution he wrote, its the burdens he concedes to, so at this point I am wining this debate. But lets move onto Economic Aid

==Economic Aid==There is literally no impact here. He just says that it isn't needed so we should stop it. But at the point where he brings out no harms to economic aid, there is no reason to stop it. But furthermore, his advocacy with this hinges on the fact that economic aid increases GDP. He concedes this when he says that "We have done our job". With that in mind, we can only expect economic aid to further increase the GDP of South Korea.

My opponent asks for the two countries in question, South Korea and North Korea, to be compared. I will do this.

First, we need to understand what my opponent has conceded in the last round.

“Then he talks about how North Korea has rocked the boat with China. This is also going to be really important for my side. I'll concede that this has happened, and as the Week reports, North Korea has threatened war with China (http://theweek.com.......)”

He has ultimately admitted that North Korean relations with China have been deteriorating and has cited evidence to prove this. Thus, North Korea loses a major ally in a potential war with South Korea. However, China is in support of another country as well.

That country is South Korea.

“China-ROK coordination on DPRK denuclearization within the Six-Party Talks framework included meetings between chief envoys Wu Dawei and Hwang Joon-kook on Sept. 1 and Nov. 24, and between deputy envoys Xiao Qian and Kim Gunn on Sept. 7. In an apparent dismissal of efforts to resume dialogue, however, DPRK representatives reportedly did not attend a forum on the Six-Party Talks hosted by China Institute of International Studies in September, which First Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan and chief nuclear envoy Ri Yong Ho had attended in the past.”

China is willing to work with South Korea on attempting to stop the proliferation of North Korean nuclear weapons. This change in policy shows the inherent need for both countries to notice the North Korean threat. It is quite likely that China would ally themselves with South Korea as shown with this policy change. Not only this, but my opponent’s argument relating to South Korea being not capable of fighting North Korea without a military ally would mean that the lasting cooperation in the event of a war between China and South Korea would mean victory. The possibility of war exists, however, my opponent has stated that the possibility of war and the loss of lives outweigh all other impacts in today’s debate. This leads to my second rebuttal.

Rebuttal 2: Military presence will not deter violence

My opponent has proffered a Rice University study as evidence. However, let us observe one of the opening paragraphs of said study.

“While some claim that the careful use of military alliances to create countervailing coalitions will deter aggressors and prevent war (e.g., Gulick, 1955; Morgenthau 1967; Waltz 1979), others claim that alliance commitments can serve to provoke and to expand war (e.g., Christensen and Snyder 1990; Siverson and Starr 1991; Vasquez 1993). Large N empirical tests of the relationships between alliances and war have not clarified the debate, as they have failed to produce clear and consistent findings.”

Regardless of the actual source, we need to realize that since there are multiple sources that produce different results. This has led many scholars to believe that there are no actual results from keeping a standing military presence on an allied nation’s ground. Thus we need to look at this example in its individual context. For instance, we need to see the ground troops presence here than any other military presence elsewhere. Also, my opponent states stability will be achieved because of the standing military presence. This can be dropped as the Rice University study states that there is no empirical data showing once-and-for-all that there is a huge implication with a standing military alliance on the ground of an allied nation. Remember, Kin Jong Un is an irrational actor, and may not take into account the alliance to an extent due to overall hostility toward Western powers blinding him. This also means that the problem is more nuanced, so a take over as seen from China when it took over the Philippines is unlikely.

However, if my opponent is still unconvinced, we can see an example of how military presence in alliance nations has proven ineffective.

Even with our military presence in both Japan and South Korea, we still see scrimmages between China and other nations, such as the one with Vietnam as described in the Time Magazine in 2014.

Not only this, but China still knows that we are allies with South Korea and other places in the South China Sea regardless of a standing military force within the region.

Rebuttal 3: Potential alliance issues

A recent Congressional Research Service study in April 2016 has shown the following:

“Despite the strengths of the alliance, tensions periodically arise in the partnership. Some of these involve typical alliance conflicts over burden sharing and cost overruns of ongoing realignment initiatives. Others reflect sensitive sovereignty issues involving Seoul’s control over its own military forces and desire to develop its own defense industry without dependence on American equipment. And although the United States and South Korea share a common interest in repelling any North Korea attack, views on the overall security landscape in Northeast Asia differ. Seoul resists adopting positions that threaten or offend China, and often expresses misgivings about Japan’s efforts to expand its military capabilities.”

Again, there are clear signs of strained relations between South Korea and the United States because of the United States presence there. Of course, I previously mentioned that this resulted in protests and anger from the South Korean people, which has been dismissed by my opponent as not representative of anything. This is clearly not true. Not only does this show the dislike of the military base in the United States, this also shows a mistrust of the American people stationed there. This is a problem as we realize that when the United States government isn’t seen as a trustworthy ally, we lose our leverage and influence in a region, especially when we directly affect the people’s livelihood in the region with murder, rape, and other crimes against the people. In the end, we have to ask ourselves, do we really want to lose influence in Asia during the South China Sea Conflict? No, so we must affirm.

Rebuttal 4: Troops elsewhere

What needs to be realized is this. I must win this argument due to the fact that I have shown the problems with the lack of military in the Middle East. Regardless of stirring up hate within the Middle East, it isn’t going to be a large impact given the fact that the problems my opponent has shown are not going to get better with inaction, and that a we cannot just have an air force, other types of military are necessary as well to defeat the ISIS menace. My opponent has not shown why a US ground force can’t solve the problem, just that it will stir up radicalization and hatred against America within that region. But, let us weigh impacts, the possible harm against the Middle Eastern people resulting in more anti-American sentiment and possibly a few more terrorists to fight, or the possible destruction of ISIS and the affiliates of said group through an organized force that can most certainly seek out the terrorists. Also, notice the fact that my opponent has not effectively refuted my Russian proliferation argument. My opponent has stated that Russia has been in Syria for forty years and has also fought ISIS which is good. However, this is bad for US interests. With Russia having raised influence in the Middle East, we see the spread of an enemy’s allies, which would not be good and would result in Russia producing more weapons at a possible offensive against the US with the help of the Middle East at a worst case scenario. Not only this, if we were to move our troops to the Middle East, we would guarantee that at the very least we have some sort of leverage within the region, meaning Russia has less. National interest of the US outweighs weakened relations with an already anti-American region, so we do not look at this impact with as much importance as mine about US goals in this region.

Rebuttal 5:Impact from economic aid

My opponent has stated that there is no impact from getting rid of economic aid. This is untrue. If we were to continue funding South Korea, we would see countless amount of dollars that could be spent on a more useful purpose such as other countries that are developing and American people’s needs. This ultimately becomes important as we see problems in infrastructure, the economy etc. I will ask my opponent to show why the South Korean economy is important to the US and why the country can’t independently act in regards to economy as I have already proven they have a strong economy and have enacted smart financial reforms as shown by my Heritage Foundation evidence in the first contention of my constructive case.

If my opponent agrees to do so, I purpose an amendment to the rules so that no new arguments may be presented in the fourth and final round. If he does not agree to this, I will continue to introduce new arguments and sources through out the debate. With that established, I will highlight the key voters and how I have won on all of them, while continuing refuting the responses against my case.

==Overview==

He continues to concede to all of it. What does this mean for the round?

I began to write this argument but I unfortunately do not have enough time to finish it. I apologize to my opponent and thank him for a wonderful debate. I will post a round 4 but this lost round will guarantee him victory. I do wish to debate this topic again at a later time.

I would like to thank my opponent for a fabulous debate. I will accept the amendment and I do understand that my opponent has not the time to construct an argument. I understand the conundrum and instead will ask my opponent to post an argument for next round if possible. Keep this in mind judges:

The forfeit should not be the reason I win this debate. Vote on who convinced you more and maybe just dock him for points against conduct if you feel it is necessary.

This debate is not over, I will continue with a short rebuttal so that my opponent at the very least can respond to it and possibly not my monster of the last rebuttal. Thank you.

Rebuttal 1: Nuclear program

What I have not refuted so far is the power of the nuclear program that North Korea maintains. However, let us look towards a very basic idea in the Cold War, which is referred to as Mutually Assured Destruction. This concept basically states that because two nations have nuclear weapons, there are going to be tensions. However, when one launches a nuclear bomb, they know that the response to the nuclear warhead, will, in fact, be another nuclear warhead aimed at their state. This response will warrant more responses and ultimately, would result in destruction.

Of course, according to the previously cited article, this was then replaced with mutually assured security, a doctrine which depended on all nations acting for the global security of all nations. However, the basic principle of Mutually Assured Destruction has made inaction occur in the past with the Cuban Missile Crisis where the Soviet Union sent nuclear bombs down to Cuba to threaten the US to get rid of the bombs in Turkey, which was close to the Soviet Union. The Navy was sent in to block the Soviet Union from delivering the missiles to Cuba, which resulted in a threatening stalemate where each side had nuclear weapons at a stand-off. The result was that each side withdrew the nuclear weapons from the nations they were asked to remove them from. Why is this? Because it could have resulted in a nuclear conflict that could have killed millions.in their respective home countries.

This type of coercing has worked in the past and it will work again. Vote pro.

This will be my only other rebuttal. I was planning on just doing an entire case, however, that does not seem necessary or feasible. Tell me next round if you would like me to forfeit the round after that.

Thank you sir for an amazing debate. I hope that, win or lose, we have both benefited from this debate in some form. He wins S+G, I am conceding this, don't bother going back to count. He wins conduct on the pseudo-forfeit. I win everything else. This final round

==Observations==Extend all of mine from Round 1.

==Voter 1: North Korea==Let's start on this idea of MAD. This wins me the round no matter which way you slice it. Lets look at it the first way. South Korea has no nuclear weapons. So the theory of MAD doesn't apply to a South-North War because only one side has the weapons that make MAD possible. So if the US was to withdraw, to ensure that the North doesn't burn Seoul in an atomic fireball, South Korea would have to militarize to develop their own nuclear arsenal. At that point he upsets regional stability by withdrawing, and you negate. But the second way you can look at this is the deference effect. If the US is committed to defending South Korea, than you can apply the MAD principle. Now he has responded to most of these arguments by saying that the US will still be allied to South Korea. But what he cold drops through this entire debate and despite the semi-forfeit in R3, I have extended every single round is the Decamp card which tells you that the purpose of our forces is to show our commitment to our allies. At that point, I win this argument. I access deterrence, preventing militarization, and protecting our allies, because an alliance with no commitment isn't a very good alliance at all. Now lets go onto the North Korea arguments on his side of the flow. First, I ask him to do comparative analysis. He never gives it except for two cards I will get onto in a second. Instead, he talks about how South Korea and China are co-operating but recognize that this is happening in the status quo with US presence and economic aid. No advantage to affirming here. Now, he gives you two pieces of evidence way back in R1 that do comparative analysis. First, he agrees to drop the Global Firepower card because we both know it is terrible. Than, he drops the evidence turn I put on the second card from the National Interest. In case you forgot, that turn was that the evidence concludes that South Korea is stronger in every way save military. What this means in lay terms is that North Korea, in the status quo, has a stronger military. This is why, with US withdrawal, South Korea would have to militarize, Which would act like a domino effect, triggering militarization across the region. Even if you don't buy my evidence on this, he concedes this in R2 anyway.

Than he tries to indict the Rice Uni card in a couple of ways. First he says that there have been multiple studies that contridict mine, but he doesn't provide you with any. I still win this card. But second, he says that our alliances with South Korea and Japan didn't stop China from seizing land from Vietnam, but this ignores what the arguement and evidence actually says because what it says is that when a nation has an ally comitted to its defence, it reduces the risk of conflict by 28%.Vietnam didn't have an ally like the United states backing them, which is why China felt comfortable waltzing in and seizing land. But this concedes something that will be important for the next voter.

==Voter 2: China==I win this because what I show you is past withdrawals have encouraged Chinese aggression. At best for him, worst for me, this point washes because of his "rocking the boat" argument. But what he concedes to with the Vietnam example is that China is acting aggressive. This is a clean place to vote neg.

==Voter 3: Better places for troops==This argument fails because he doesn't show you how troops in South Korea prevent troops in the middle east. Even if we withdraw, that doesn't mean that we will relocate troops to the middle east, or anywhere else in the world where they may be of better use. At that point he has no solvency, no reason to vote for you.

==Voter 4: Troops Suck==They do. But he doesn't prove solvency off of this argument either, because when he tries to run it along side of his other argument, all we will see is troops cause human rights abuses in more volatile areas of the world.

==Voter 5: Economic Aid==

He doesn't give you any reason why to stop it. Sure, he says we don't need it. But just because we don't need it doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue it.

Thus, I very proudly negate.

I again thank my opponent for a fantastic debate and hope to debate him again some time.